For the Republican party droppin endorsements can suppress Republican turnout, and while Establishment R. would probably be happy to see Trump flame out in the general (Hillary is at least a political known quantity), it's the "down ballot" elections (senators, representatives, governors, state congressthings, city officials, etc) are where the actual "work" of governance actually happens, and the Establishment doesn't want to suppress Republican turnout for those votes.

They'd probably tolerate a situation where Hillary Clinton is the president and stonewall her the way they did Obama (hell, she's probably more vulnerable to scandal investigations than Obama ever was), but they have to hold on to Congress in order to do that, so endorsing Trump becomes a necessity to maintain their hold on the more local positions.

We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr wrote:No. Hispanic is racist, Mexican is a nationality. There's a very, very fine point here, and yes, one can extremely easily infer that someone making this argument is doing so as the thinnest of covers for racism, but *that* particular statement ends up being a poor example. (Rest assured that Trump has also made similar statements using the word "Hispanic". We're discussing the validity of this example, not his racism per se)

It's not actually a correct point, which makes it very fine. Race is a social concept, not a biological one. Therefore, it doesn't actually have hard and fast borders to say "this is a race, that isn't".

Yes, race, in practice, mostly refers solely to physical appearance, and isn't a great match to biological groupings.

But it's definitely not the same as pointing at national borders. Sure, there are a lot of correlations between national groups and racial groups, but calling out a nationality isn't usually quite the same as racism.

So, it's kind of a crap example. The left keeps jumping on everything and screaming raaaaacist, which pretty much just contaminates search results. Makes it easy for less motivated people to say "oh, that's not so bad". Its as if they expect this labeling to WORK. It isn't. And it's making the label less meaningful. Standard boy who cried wolf problem. A person checks out a coupla "this is racist" comments regarding Trump and finds jack-all, and they're just going to stop checking and discount further accusations of that type altogether.

sardia wrote:Let's be more charitable with our argument. How about, Trump is blowing smoke, whining, etc etc and nothing he says is actionable. Why can't we condemn him and drop our endorsements?

His lawyers are certainly not making the legal case that would match his public statements. I'm sure they are well aware that mere membership ina a single organization isn't going to be very persuasive. It's just a handy way for him to pull more headlines, etc.

He won't lose his endorsements because of factionalism. He's the nominee now. The republicans want to keep/get as much power as possible. They can't very well tell their voters to vote democrat or stay home. That'd murder the down-ticket results. They don't LIKE Trump, at all, but they have to do this.

His lawyers not acting is mere self interest. Trump has first amendment right to trash talk. Lawyers will be punished for actually trying to remove a judge for bias without evidence. It's very serious when you question the bedrock of an institution as any damage done would reverberate for years.

If this isn't racism, what would you call it? An unsubstantiated attack on an institution? Jingoism? Nativism?

sardia wrote:His lawyers not acting is mere self interest. Trump has first amendment right to trash talk. Lawyers will be punished for actually trying to remove a judge for bias without evidence. It's very serious when you question the bedrock of an institution as any damage done would reverberate for years.

If this isn't racism, what would you call it? An unsubstantiated attack on an institution? Jingoism? Nativism?

Oh, Trump is racist as shit. This example is simply not a great way to demonstrate that.

At this point, I honestly wouldn't focus on racism, but instead, just toss out various examples of his dickishness. LOTS to choose from, that way. Can get variety.

But anyway, back on the topic of this event, this is him being butt hurt over being forced to disclose inconvenient docs. He goes into attack mode, gets the focus shifted elsewhere. This *works*, but he's got a pattern here. He's basically compelled to attack back. He's never learned the game of ignoring insults, or losing, even if it would be strategically advantageous. It's his flaw. If anything sinks him, it'll be that.

ucim wrote:I'm not so worried about Trump 2016 as I am about Trump 2020.

Statistically speaking, winning a second term appears to be significantly easier than winning a first.

Yes, but what I'm worried about is the return of Trump in 2020 after losing 2016.

Now that would be a ch*rping m*stard.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

ucim wrote:I'm not so worried about Trump 2016 as I am about Trump 2020.

Statistically speaking, winning a second term appears to be significantly easier than winning a first.

Yes, but what I'm worried about is the return of Trump in 2020 after losing 2016.

Now that would be a ch*rping m*stard.

Jose

Nah. Once you hit a certain level of popular notoriety running for the presidency, a second go isn't usually likely to be successful. Not for republicans anyways. There's a certain view of "you had your shot and blew it". If Trump crashes and burns, four years from now, nobody will give a shit about him.

A Romney 2.0 run would have failed horribly. Nobody would have cared about him. Same, same.

leady wrote:Oh I don't think that it should succeed as a gambit, but both as a legal "try it on" tactic and actually as political "pre-load my support base that outcome is biased" its quite clever, whilst only being a little underhanded. I mean its hardly a novel tactic in the legal system.

It isn't underhanded. And I encourage him to continue. Never have so many Republicans had so hard a time, trying to support their candidate, while trying to stand as far away from him as possible. Just seeing Mitch in agony is worth every moment. I would pay money for this if it was a farce in a theater rather than a political farce.

leady wrote:Oh I don't think that it should succeed as a gambit, but both as a legal "try it on" tactic and actually as political "pre-load my support base that outcome is biased" its quite clever, whilst only being a little underhanded. I mean its hardly a novel tactic in the legal system.

It isn't underhanded. And I encourage him to continue. Never have so many Republicans had so hard a time, trying to support their candidate, while trying to stand as far away from him as possible. Just seeing Mitch in agony is worth every moment. I would pay money for this if it was a farce in a theater rather than a political farce.

I do not support cruel and unusual punishment even towards terrible political opponents who had it coming. In fact, I especially oppose my rivals being overtaken by demagogues. While we may profit over their "mistakes", the chance of an awful person succeeding is too terrible to gamble on. I warned about this before with the rise of the tea party. A handful of congressmen nearly took the US over the cliff. The spectre of a uncontrolled thin skinned demagogues could easily spiral from depression into war.

Tyndmyr wrote:If Trump crashes and burns, four years from now, nobody will give a shit about him.

From your lips to God's ears. But I've learned that underestimating Trump is dangerous.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr wrote:If Trump crashes and burns, four years from now, nobody will give a shit about him.

From your lips to God's ears. But I've learned that underestimating Trump is dangerous.

Jose

Sort of. But there's a danger in overlearning exceptions. Trump *is* dangerous, in the current environment. He wasn't, before. He kinda made a stab at it in 2000, but it didn't really go anywhere. This happens to be a political environment that allows him to be successful. It's not a universal condition, though. Much as he would like to sell the idea that he is some kind of "winner", that's not entirely true. He's not a complete idiot or anything, but he's not some magical uberman either.

Trump losing in 2016 undermines the only reason why people are voting for him: because he's winning at the moment. If Trump loses vs Hilary Clinton, it'd be an embarrassment that'd destroy his fake-macho persona.

ucim wrote:I'm not so worried about Trump 2016 as I am about Trump 2020.

Statistically speaking, winning a second term appears to be significantly easier than winning a first.

Yes, but what I'm worried about is the return of Trump in 2020 after losing 2016.

Now that would be a ch*rping m*stard.

Jose

From my point of view, the bigger concern is other, more competent politicians taking lessons from Trump's campaign this year and applying them in future elections. And that's going to start no later than 2018.

sardia wrote:I do not support cruel and unusual punishment even towards terrible political opponents who had it coming.

Neither do I. But I had nothing to do with it. And nothing I can do will change anything.

sardia wrote:While we may profit over their "mistakes", the chance of an awful person succeeding is too terrible to gamble on. I warned about this before with the rise of the tea party. A handful of congressmen nearly took the US over the cliff. The spectre of a uncontrolled thin skinned demagogues could easily spiral from depression into war.

Sure it could, and the sad thing is, that if it is going to happen you can't do anything about it. No individual has sufficient power and no group with power is cohesive enough to exercise it. Assassination would kill Trump but would only open the door wider to someone even more spooky. Either the system is flexible enough to survive him or it isn't. And you are going to have a ringside seat to find out this election.

ucim wrote:I'm not so worried about Trump 2016 as I am about Trump 2020.

Statistically speaking, winning a second term appears to be significantly easier than winning a first.

Yes, but what I'm worried about is the return of Trump in 2020 after losing 2016.

Now that would be a ch*rping m*stard.

Jose

From my point of view, the bigger concern is other, more competent politicians taking lessons from Trump's campaign this year and applying them in future elections. And that's going to start no later than 2018.

If the lesson is "Trump loses 35% to 65% in a historic landslide of epic proportions while Republicans lose their House and Senate majority simultaneously", I'd be fine with that. The main issue is that Trump needs a humiliating double-digit loss in November so that Republicans unambiguously get the right idea: that this Trump experiment truly is a disaster.

The unfortunate truth though, is that I expect maybe 47% to 53% loss for Trump and things remaining unclear.

...or he'd twist it into "American people needed more time to realize the mistake they were making not electing me. That's 'cause they're dumb. But I'm not. And you're not. The Crooked HillaryTM presidency proves it. Now, everyone, raise your right hand in pledge to me, and let's take this country back once and for all!"

No. I'm not convinced he'll just fade away.

I don't know what will happen, but to dismiss the possibility would be a mistake.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

sardia wrote:His lawyers not acting is mere self interest. Trump has first amendment right to trash talk. Lawyers will be punished for actually trying to remove a judge for bias without evidence. It's very serious when you question the bedrock of an institution as any damage done would reverberate for years.

If this isn't racism, what would you call it? An unsubstantiated attack on an institution? Jingoism? Nativism?

Oh, Trump is racist as shit. This example is simply not a great way to demonstrate that.

At this point, I honestly wouldn't focus on racism, but instead, just toss out various examples of his dickishness. LOTS to choose from, that way. Can get variety.

But anyway, back on the topic of this event, this is him being butt hurt over being forced to disclose inconvenient docs. He goes into attack mode, gets the focus shifted elsewhere. This *works*, but he's got a pattern here. He's basically compelled to attack back. He's never learned the game of ignoring insults, or losing, even if it would be strategically advantageous. It's his flaw. If anything sinks him, it'll be that.

I think this is actually a brilliant strategy on the part of Trump. Calling the judge's impartiality into question will pay dividends if he loses the case. It gives Trump supporters a reason to ignore the verdict (should it not go his way) and continue to provide him their guilt-free support.

They will reason thus:On the surface, Trump's accusation sounds reasonable. It makes sense that a judge of Mexican descent who belongs to La Raza is going to be prejudiced against Trump, because of Trump's advocacy for a wall and stricter enforcement of immigration laws. The charges of racism are just desperate rhetoric from the usual suspects. A California judge can belong to La Raza (how is THAT not a racist organization?) but not the Boy Scouts? Just one more baseless accusation of racism amid thousands. Oh, look. The Republican elite are withdrawing their support from Trump. Big surprise! Isn't this the same kind of spineless behavior Republicans always exhibit? They talk a good fight but as soon as the Democrats attack, they fold like a cheap suit. At least Trump fights back!

Now, I know nothing about this judge or his record. He could be the very soul of judicial restraint but it wouldn't matter, because I (like most people) simply don't have the time or inclination to do any research on him. That's why Trump's sound bite (Mexican judge, La Raza) will carry the day.

Tyndmyr wrote:Oh, Trump is racist as shit. This example is simply not a great way to demonstrate that. At this point, I honestly wouldn't focus on racism, but instead, just toss out various examples of his dickishness. LOTS to choose from, that way. Can get variety. But anyway, back on the topic of this event, this is him being butt hurt over being forced to disclose inconvenient docs. He goes into attack mode, gets the focus shifted elsewhere. This *works*, but he's got a pattern here. He's basically compelled to attack back. He's never learned the game of ignoring insults, or losing, even if it would be strategically advantageous. It's his flaw. If anything sinks him, it'll be that.

I think this is actually a brilliant strategy on the part of Trump. Calling the judge's impartiality into question will pay dividends if he loses the case. It gives Trump supporters a reason to ignore the verdict (should it not go his way) and continue to provide him their guilt-free support.They will reason thus:On the surface, Trump's accusation sounds reasonable. It makes sense that a judge of Mexican descent who belongs to La Raza is going to be prejudiced against Trump, because of Trump's advocacy for a wall and stricter enforcement of immigration laws. The charges of racism are just desperate rhetoric from the usual suspects. A California judge can belong to La Raza (how is THAT not a racist organization?) but not the Boy Scouts? Just one more baseless accusation of racism amid thousands. Oh, look. The Republican elite are withdrawing their support from Trump. Big surprise! Isn't this the same kind of spineless behavior Republicans always exhibit? They talk a good fight but as soon as the Democrats attack, they fold like a cheap suit. At least Trump fights back!Now, I know nothing about this judge or his record. He could be the very soul of judicial restraint but it wouldn't matter, because I (like most people) simply don't have the time or inclination to do any research on him. That's why Trump's sound bite (Mexican judge, La Raza) will carry the day.See? It's brilliant!

One of the biggest reasons Donald Trump is considered to be a long shot to win the presidency is the diversity of the country.As Joe Scarborough of MSNBC put it, “There are not enough white voters in America for Donald Trump to win while getting routed among minorities.”But a growing body of evidence suggests that there is still a path, albeit a narrow one, for Mr. Trump to win without gains among nonwhite voters.New analysis by The Upshot shows that millions more white, older working-class voters went to the polls in 2012 than was found by exit polls on Election Day. This raises the prospect that Mr. Trump has a larger pool of potential voters than generally believed.The wider path may help explain why Mr. Trump is competitive in early general election surveys against Hillary Clinton. And it calls into question the prevailing demographic explanation of recent elections, which held that Barack Obama did very poorly among whites and won only because young and minority voters turned out in record numbers. This story line led Republicans to conclude that they had maximized their support from white voters and needed to reach out to Hispanics to win in 2016.

Despite what the GOP likes to claim, there's a scary amount of white people in the US. Enough that Trump has a narrow path to victory instead of no chance.

Asian/OtherAlthough Asians and others (including Native Americans, Native Hawaiians and multiracial voters) made up just 5 percent of all voters in 2012, they are the fastest-growing segment of the voting-eligible population. Obama took 73 percent of the Asian vote in 2012, 2 points higher than his share among Latinos. However, like Latinos, these voters are heavily concentrated in less competitive states such as California, New Mexico, and Washington.

Asians don't live in swing states, and white people do. That's why the stat heads focus on white people. They vote more often, there's more of them, and they live in swing states.

Goddammit. Clinton says that Warren is qualified to be her VP and Warren concurs; the absurd dance commences. I think Warren is one of the best senators there is (and probably would have made a better presidential candidate than Sanders), and by the same token I think her talents would be utterly wasted in the useless-as-shit office that is the vice presidency. But the worst thing is that with Warren on the ticket, I might actually feel tempted to vote for Nixon 2.0 Hillary.

Goddammit. Clinton says that Warren is qualified to be her VP and Warren concurs; the absurd dance commences. I think Warren is one of the best senators there is (and probably would have made a better presidential candidate than Sanders), and by the same token I think her talents would be utterly wasted in the useless-as-shit office that is the vice presidency. But the worst thing is that with Warren on the ticket, I might actually feel tempted to vote for Nixon 2.0 Hillary.

No no no, I must cast that devil out. Jill Stein all the way.

I can't follow you here. If you do not want Warren to be vice-president, then surely Clinton becomes a less attractive candidate if Warren is her vice-presidential candidate?

Goddammit. Clinton says that Warren is qualified to be her VP and Warren concurs; the absurd dance commences. I think Warren is one of the best senators there is (and probably would have made a better presidential candidate than Sanders), and by the same token I think her talents would be utterly wasted in the useless-as-shit office that is the vice presidency. But the worst thing is that with Warren on the ticket, I might actually feel tempted to vote for Nixon 2.0 Hillary.

No no no, I must cast that devil out. Jill Stein all the way.

I can't follow you here. If you do not want Warren to be vice-president, then surely Clinton becomes a less attractive candidate if Warren is her vice-presidential candidate?

Politics is like a dirty bucket of water.

Clinton is basically a dirty bucket of water. All grimy and filled with crap. Warren is "clean water" so to speak. Clinton's strategy is to pour clean water into the bucket to make everything look cleaner.

The dirt is still there of course, but the water looks cleaner because all the dirt has been diluted.

Spoiler:

Not that I know a thing about Warren. But some friend of mine described picking a vice presidential candidate to always be the "dirty bucket of water" trick, and it seems to always describe the picks. Except for Sarah Palin in 2008...

Other than being the nominal head of proceedings and a tie-breaker in the Senate, the position of Vice Presidency is pretty much a non-position. Also VPs haven't made a good showing as Presidential Candidates since George H.W. Bush (the first Pres. Bush). If you want to see Warren in an effective policy-making position being V.P. is pretty much the last place you want to see her at.

We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Keep your eye on the prize. He knows that Warren on the ticket is a meaningless gesture unless Clinton gets indicted or drops over dead. However she is a Sanders type of progressive, which he likes. The thought tempts him to vote for Clinton even though he knows Clinton would be the one proposing policy, not Warren.

To be fair the amount of sway a V.P. holds over policy in the executive depends on the interpersonal dynamics between them and the President. Dick Cheney had significant say in how things were run in G.W.Bush's administration (IMO because Cheney's machiavellian streak led him to keep his head in a crisis where GWB frequently impersonated a deer in headlights).

As to a Clinton/Warren ticket... I don't think Warren would fare favorably in the power dynamic. Not by a lot, but enough to be effectively pushed into the background by Clinton.

We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Dauric wrote:Other than being the nominal head of proceedings and a tie-breaker in the Senate, the position of Vice Presidency is pretty much a non-position. Also VPs haven't made a good showing as Presidential Candidates since George H.W. Bush (the first Pres. Bush). If you want to see Warren in an effective policy-making position being V.P. is pretty much the last place you want to see her at.

There haven't really been all that many that have tried since GHWB, have there? I mean, it's just Gore, right? Wise or not, I'm sure that the theory behind Warren accepting a VP bid would be that it would set her up as a presidential candidate down the road.

Dauric wrote:Other than being the nominal head of proceedings and a tie-breaker in the Senate, the position of Vice Presidency is pretty much a non-position. Also VPs haven't made a good showing as Presidential Candidates since George H.W. Bush (the first Pres. Bush). If you want to see Warren in an effective policy-making position being V.P. is pretty much the last place you want to see her at.

There haven't really been all that many that have tried since GHWB, have there? I mean, it's just Gore, right? Wise or not, I'm sure that the theory behind Warren accepting a VP bid would be that it would set her up as a presidential candidate down the road.

Well, since GHWB, we've only had Quayle (didn't want it), Gore (lost), Cheney (no chance in hell to get it), Biden (doesn't want it, due in large part to family).

"Does this smell like chloroform to you?""Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

JudeMorrigan wrote:From my point of view, the bigger concern is other, more competent politicians taking lessons from Trump's campaign this year and applying them in future elections. And that's going to start no later than 2018.

Oh, yes. That'll happen. Probably on both sides of the aisle. Particularly if he wins. They may not understand it entirely, but they will attempt to copy it regardless.

KnightExemplar wrote:If the lesson is "Trump loses 35% to 65% in a historic landslide of epic proportions while Republicans lose their House and Senate majority simultaneously", I'd be fine with that. The main issue is that Trump needs a humiliating double-digit loss in November so that Republicans unambiguously get the right idea: that this Trump experiment truly is a disaster.

The unfortunate truth though, is that I expect maybe 47% to 53% loss for Trump and things remaining unclear.

It's hard to get blowouts now, because partisanship is high and the electorate is reasonably divided. Barring some act of god, Republicans are mostly going to turn out and vote for Trump, and Democrats are mostly going to turn out and vote for Hillary.

If we see odd swing states in play or what not, or what should be safe states being won by lower margins, that's interesting, but we're unlikely to get a really unambiguous message.

KnightExemplar wrote:I really don't like this "white people" argument because the vast majority of Trump supporters I know of are 60+ year old Asian women, all naturalized citizens btw (My mother and multiple aunts)

I'm an Asian, so I know more Asian people than most. So it speaks more to the demographics of my circle and family. But that doesn't change the above fact.

Yeah. Minorities are not exactly a monolithic block. Focusing just on "white people" underestimates the potential draw, I think. When you get into looking at swing states, even fairly minor bumps can significantly affect odds of winning.

I would prefer to see Warren or Sanders in Health and Human Services, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, or Labor in preference to VP.

It might not be as appeasing to many followers as VP, but it's a lot more in line with them being able to do what they are focused on, and wield some actual power.

As far as Hillary, herself, I'm not particularly fond of her. I believe she is a little to willing to compromise principles for power. That being said, she has more experience in international affairs than any president we've had recently, she is effective at getting things done, and, despite extensive investigations by political opponents, nothing has actually stuck. She may walk close to the line, but there doesn't seem to be evidence she has crossed it. And a president who understands compromise isn't the worst thing in the world, that's what politics is, after all.

leady wrote:Is Trump still polling higher than normal across minority groups compared to the typical republican?

Last thing I see of is from May, so...I suppose as of then, yes? Only one data point, though, the rest are fairly stale. Jan, Dec timeframe. That's ages ago at the moment.

But yeah, in general, he does not seem to be particularly suffering among minorities, by Republican standards. I would expect normal demographic trends for the general to mostly persist, but it seems to be just normal R vs D demographic differences, and maybe less of that than usual.

I think this gets to a "letter of the term Vs. spirit of the term" thing. By the strict definition of "Racism" Trump skirts the line -just enough- to not be technically racist and prevent an accusation of such from sticking entirely, however the emotional drive behind the statements, the spirit in which they are delivered, has some pretty significant racist overtones. He might not be over the line, but he's certainly scraping paint off it as he goes past.

We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

The whole thing made me angry. Here in Northern California, I feel like I’m a unicorn: I’m a gay Hispanic who’s a Republican. It was much harder to come out as a Trump supporter than it was to come out as gay — the minute you say you’re for Trump, everyone comes at you — but this has pushed me out of the closet about it completely.

Clinton and Bernie did a good job decrying the violence at San Jose, but once again, the whole event has ceded the moral high ground to Trump. Future discussions about "Trump and Protesters" are going to be about San Jose from here on out.

And once again: pretending that all Trump supporters are white will hurt the arguments against Trump. His base has enough minorities that its impossible to call it "racist", even as Trump himself skirts the line many times.

morriswalters wrote:Keep your eye on the prize. He knows that Warren on the ticket is a meaningless gesture unless Clinton gets indicted or drops over dead. However she is a Sanders type of progressive, which he likes. The thought tempts him to vote for Clinton even though he knows Clinton would be the one proposing policy, not Warren.

This. I like Warren a lot and would be reluctant to vote against her in any race – so having her on the ticket might spoil my plan to vote for Doña Stein of La Mancha (a luxury which, as I've said before, I'm only allowing myself because I live in a non-swing state). I know the vice president can, depending on the individual, have a modest advisory role in the administration, but I would vastly prefer to see Warren assume a position of leadership in the Senate.

Dauric wrote:I think this gets to a "letter of the term Vs. spirit of the term" thing. By the strict definition of "Racism" Trump skirts the line -just enough- to not be technically racist and prevent an accusation of such from sticking entirely, however the emotional drive behind the statements, the spirit in which they are delivered, has some pretty significant racist overtones. He might not be over the line, but he's certainly scraping paint off it as he goes past.

The same can be said of his "Pocahontas" attacks against Warren. In theory he's mocking the idea of her (allegedly false) pretension to Native American ancestry, but in tone and spirit it seems a lot like an attack on someone's heritage – especially if you don't know the particulars of the case.